Drug WarRant

“Can Congress Get a Clue? (Karen Tandy and the DEA)”

Late Thursday night, the U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed Karen P. Tandy as the new head of the DEA, following former administrator Asa Hutchinson’s move to Homeland Security.
The Washington Post reported the confirmation, without mentioning some of the more disturbing facts of her past, or the lack of critical knowledge she exhibited in her confirmation hearing.
Jason Vest’s excellent article in The Nation – A New Hard-Liner at the DEA details some of the issues which should have received close scrutiny by the White House, the Senate, or at least by the Senate Judiciary Committee, including the fact that her assignments as a Justice Department prosecutor and administrator involved:

• busting mail order bong sellers
• busting medical marijuana operations in California and Oregon

Additionally, Karen Tandy:

• was “disqualified and prohibited from directly or indirectly participating” in an investigation by Judge Albert Bryan Jr. because she read documents the court had ruled were protected by attorney-client privilege
• in one case waited until only three days before trial before giving defense attorneys over 60,000 pages of critical documents, all unindexed
• supposedly threatened to withhold family visits unless a defendant said what she wanted him to say
• seized the property of a defendant’s family member even though there was no evidence he was involved
• changed the wording of a plea agreement without the knowledge of the defendant, defense attorney, or judge, in order to set up the defendant for a subsequent arrest
• failed to turn over exculpatory evidence in a cocaine trial
• seized the business and property of a man despite a lack of evidence – a judge was so upset by the lack of evidence that he dismissed the charges “with prejudice”

…
Read the full story

Today in Marijuana History

August 2, 1937: The Marijuana Tax Act is passed, enacting federal marijuana prohibition for the first time. Harry Anslinger commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, tells Congress during a remarkably brief hearing, “Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.” William Woodward, representative of the AMA testifies against the legislation, saying “The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug.” On the floor of the house, the entire discussion was:

• Member from upstate New York: “Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?”
• Speaker Rayburn: “I don’t know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it’s a narcotic of some kind.”
• “Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?”
• Member on the committee jumps up and says: “Their Doctor Wentworth came down here. They support this bill 100 percent.”

Not true, but good enough to get Republican support and passage.

August 2, 1977: President Jimmy Carter tells Congress, “Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Therefore, I support legislation amending Federal law to eliminate all Federal criminal penalties for the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana.”

Thanks to The Week Online with DRCNet (soon to be called “The Drug War Chronicle”)

Worth a read
1. For a good overview of the current status of the war on drugs, the August 18 issue of The Nation will include an article by Sasha Abramsky: The Drug War Goes Up in Smoke (now available online, and also available at MAP).

“The war on terror may be too new to declare victory or defeat. But this nation has been fighting a war on drugs for more than a quarter-century,
ever since New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller mandated harsh drug
sentencing in 1973–and it may be time to announce that this is one war
we’ve lost.”

2. In my own state of Illinois, this week governor Rod Blagojevich finally brought us out of the dark ages by signing a bill allowing limited non-prescription sale of syringes, to slow the spread of AIDS and other blood-born diseases among drug addicts. Steve Chapman has a good article in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune: Eliminating death penalties for drug use (Chicago Tribune, free registration required, or you can read the article at MAP).

“Want to do something?”
Thought some of you might like to do something about the drug war, so I’ve added a resource page so you can get involved. (It also includes a couple of cool ways to link to this site if you’d like.)

Prosecutorial Misconduct – Money Laundering and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Prosecutor Robin Piper of Butler County, Ohio has decided on his own that existing drug law penalties aren’t good enough, so he’s started tacking on a new charge: money laundering. By adding the money laundering charge to a drug sale, he can add 5 years to the sentence. Apparently, a little-used section of the Ohio laws on money laundering includes the phrase “by receiving the money as the result of corrupt activity, knowing that the money coming to him is the result of corrupt activity.” Hmmm… does this mean if I lived in Ohio I could get five years for receiving my tax refund?
But wait! It gets worse.
District Attorney Jerry Wilson of Watauga County, North Carolina has come up with some unique charges in the case of the bust of a methamphetamines lab: two counts of manufacturing a nuclear or chemical weapon. That’s right, the drug defendant is being charged under a new Weapons of Mass Destruction law passed after 9/11, which carries a penalty of 12 years to life on each count, which includes “any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury and … is or contains toxic or poisonous chemicals or their immediate precursors.” Philip Morris, watch out!
In the meth lab case, agents found a house with meth, the chemicals used to manufacture it, and an automatic weapon. So, in addition to the two counts of manufacturing a nuclear or chemical weapon, the defendant was charged with: one count each of manufacturing a controlled substance, maintaining a dwelling place for a controlled substance, possession of the immediate precursor chemicals with intent to manufacture, sell and deliver a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, maintaining a vehicle for a controlled substance (he had a car), and possession of a weapon of mass destruction (the gun).
Now, first of all, some blame has to lay with the legislators, who pass so many criminal laws and provisions that they can’t even keep track of them, rarely consider how they’ll be used, and care little about the proper crafting of them. However, when did the job of the prosecutor become one of getting a conviction at all costs, for as many charges and penalties that they can creatively cobble together? True, our system is an adversarial system, but the prosecutor’s job is not just one of adamantly countering the defense, but they also serve the constitution, the people, the law (in intent as well as structure), and, dare I say it, justice.
Is anyone teaching prosecutorial ethics?

Republicans, Democrats, and the concept of state
Dave Morris of AlterNet has an interesting take on the Medical Marijuana vote in the House (see my Sunday article “Can Congress Get a Clue? (Medical Marijuana and States’ Rights)”). He focuses more specifically on the divide between Dems and Repubs on states rights, individual rights, and privacy.
Sample:

“After July 23 it is impossible for the Republicans to argue that theirs is the party that fights to defend the individual against the tyranny of big government.”

Strong words, but supported in his article. He concludes that “The Democrats have a winning issue if they run against the Republican concept of the State.”

Drug WarRant has a domain name
While the pages you see here continue to show the blog.salon.com/0002762/ address, you can now get here through the much easier-to-remember method of http://www.DrugWarRant.com (I admit this is partly for my own sake – I ran into a friend the other night and told him about my new blog, but couldn’t remember the address!)

We’ve just about lost a generation of young people. We’re building new prison beds at the rate of about 1000 a week and we’re still overcrowded… We’ve spent $100 billion on the war on drugs and we’re losing it.

— US District Judge Thomas Wiseman

The New York Times reported today some frightening new prison numbers from a Department of Justice study.

• “The nation’s prison population grew 2.6 percent last year, the largest increase since 1999” (despite a drop in violent crime and state budget deficits resulting in early prisoner releases).
• “At the end of 2002, there were 2,166,260 Americans in local jails, state and federal prisons and juvenile detention facilities.”
• “10.4 percent of black men ages 25 to 29, or 442,300 people, were in prison last year”
• 20% of inmates in state prisons were doing time for drug crimes
• “In the federal prison system, which with 163,528 inmates is now larger than any state system, 48 percent of the growth in the number of prisoners from 1995 to 2001 was accounted for by drug crimes and only 9 percent by violent crimes.” (my emphasis)

Of course, the federal government has shown that what it really likes to do is send armed agents to take down old folks in wheelchairs or glassblowers. And the FBI would rather go after drug seizures than investigate terrorists.
For more information about the devastation of our destructive incarceration, visit the November Coalition (In particular, read about the real faces behind the prisoners in their Stories from behind the WALL, and “Children of War.”

Some things I’ve written…
I’ve added a few previously composed items to the articles section.

• “Increase in Burger Abuse Seen” – a satire about the government’s Burger War in 2043.
• “Debunking the ONDCP’s Scott Burns” – a point-by-point response to a propaganda letter from the ONDCP’s Deputy Director to prosecutors across the country. (written in December, 2002)
• “Cannabis Plant, Drug Prohibition, and Illinois Economic Development” – A Report to the Illinois Economic Development Policy Conference on the Economic Impact of Policies Relating to the Cannabis Plant and Drug Prohibition, presented to governor-elect Rod Blagojevich as part of the Stevenson Center Illinois Economic Development Policy Conference held on December 12 and 13, 2002 at Illinois State University.

Can Congress Get a Clue? (Medical Marijuana and States’ Rights)
Drug war issues are regularly debated in that most ignorant and corrupt of entities: the United States Congress. This is the body that supposedly represents the American people, yet has consistently been lagging behind the states, science, reason, and popular opinion when it comes to the war on drugs.
In three recent instances, some cracks have appeared in Congress’ usually monolithic stance.
One of the most significant was last week’s Hinchey amendment to the House Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations bill:

(H.AMDT.297 to H.R.2799) An amendment to prohibit use of funds in the bill to prevent the States of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, or Washington from implementing State laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana in those States.

In plain English, ten states have passed laws allowing regulated use of marijuana for medical purposes. The Federal Government (i.e., the DEA and ONDCP) has not only refused to accept the states’ right to do so, but it has targeted those states with federal raids on medical marijuana caregivers, often with dozens of armed agents descending on terminally ill and bed-ridden patients. This amendment would have prevented the Federal Government from interfering with the implementation of medical marijuana laws in those specific ten states.
The amendment failed 152-273. In a reasonable world, this should be a shocking loss, but in our House of Representatives, the fact that 15 republicans, 136 democrats, and 1 independent voted in favor is a major victory. This is the largest number ever to vote in favor of a medical marijuana issue. (See the list of how representatives voted and tell yours how you feel.)
A look at some of the debates on the floor gives a notion of how the drug war cheerleaders’ arguments are constructed.
Michael Burgess of Texas was one of those who spoke against the amendment:

“I actually had not planned on speaking on this issue this evening, but after sitting in my office and hearing some of the other arguments, I felt compelled to come over and at least, if I could, perhaps provide some illumination on this subject.”

In an attempt to claim that there is no medical need for marijuana, he then proceeded to include in the record the package insert from Marinol, a high-priced cannabinoid based drug that was speedily approved by the government (with the encouragement of the pharmaceutical industry) for use in easing many of the same symptoms that marijuana helps. He just conveniently failed to mention that Marinol is generally less effective, has worse side effects, greater dosage control issues, and is more expensive than marijuana. (See Lester Grinspoon’s Cannabis Health article (pdf).
The thing I found particularly interesting in this exchange is how Burgess came to the floor on impulse, and just happened to have a package of subscription Marinol. Now it’s true that Burgess is a doctor, so you might think this is no big deal. But he delivers babies. What’s a Texas obstetrician doing with a package of Marinol in his office in Washington, DC unless it was provided to him for just this purpose?
Who would provide it? Most likely the pharmaceutical industry lobby, which has vested interest in preventing an effective drug that can be grown in your back yard, cannot be patented, and thereby cuts into “legal” drug profits.
John Mica of Florida presented some of the most surreal arguments against the amendment. It’s bad enough that he’s a congressman and ignorant, but he was also formerly the chair of the committee which oversees drug policy in the House (Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources).
At one point in his opposition to the amendment, he brought up a figure of 19,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States. Considering there has never been a recorded instance of a drug overdose death from Marijuana (the necessary dose is impossible to consume), it’s hard to figure how that number has any relevance to a discussion of states’ rights to regulate medical marijuana. In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control, in 1998 there were 16,926 total licit and illicit drug induced deaths (might be up to 19,000 by now). This includes “not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of drugs (legal and illegal use), but also poisoning from medically prescribed and other drugs.” And none of these was from marijuana.
Mica continued bizarrely:

“We also heard here that the medical use of marijuana will relieve pain. Well, I can say also from chairing that subcommittee that that is not the case. In fact, anything that we do to encourage use, whether for this purpose or other purposes, will not relieve pain, it will cause pain. Certainly, I am sure if someone smoked enough marijuana or took enough crack or enough heroin or methamphetamines, they would not have any pain.”

Note: The 1999 subcommittee hearing referenced was a pro-drug war circus used to attack drug reformers. NORML was excluded from the hearings, and Rep. Bob Barr actually asked whether anti-racketeering laws could be used to prosecute people conspiring to legalize drugs. (see NY Times article)
Mark Souder of Indiana (also author of the Drug Free Student Aid Provision, which mandates that students convicted of any drug-related offenses (without regard to the nature of the offense or the offender) be denied eligibility for financial aid for periods ranging from one year to “indefinite”), decided to weigh in to counter the argument that states should be allowed to implement their own laws.

“This is about when Congress passed a law under the Constitution that said in interstate commerce, which narcotics move across interstate commerce, which was not a liberal interpretation of that clause but a strict interpretation of that clause from a conservative perspective, all except the more anarcho-libertarians, as we used to call them, believe that in drug laws the Federal Government historically has had the right to enforce a Federal law.”

Set aside

1. the convoluted sentence structure, or
2. the fact that he actually thinks that when the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana grows their own marijuana under state and local regulations and authority and distributes it to terminally ill patients without cost, that it constitutes “narcotics [moving] across interstate commerce.”

You still have the remarkable fact that Souder seems to be repudiating the entire conservative history of supporting states’ rights, and consigning it to the “libertarian fringe” (as he also referred to them). I wonder if he includes the Republican Party in this fringe, which adopted the following platform in 2000:

We must acknowledge that the federal government’s role should be to set expectations in policies, then get out of the way and let the states implement and operate those policies as they best know how. Washington must respect that one size does not fit all states and must not overburden states with red tape attached to its policies.

Or perhaps the President is a reformed anarcho-libertarian. Asked about medical marijuana as he campaigned for president in 1999, George W. Bush said he believes “each state can choose that decision as they so choose” (sic)
Several speakers parroted the standard ONDCP lies and exaggerations, using almost the exact same wording that Walters and his staff use, including the repetitious claim that there is no evidence of marijuana having medical value – the “if you say it often enough, maybe people will believe it” approach. The evidence, however, is voluminous. For an excellent overview, check out “Exposing Marijuana Myths: A Review of the Scientific Evidence” by John P. Morgan and Lynn Zimmer (pdf).
Of course, not all the speakers in this debate showed such a lack of knowledge and reason. Reps. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Sam Farr (D-CA), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) gave some excellent arguments in favor of the amendment. Kudos also to the 152 members who fought the pressure from the Bush Administration, the Republican leadership, and the lobbies to attempt to bring some reason to the states’ ability to follow their own laws regarding regulated medical use of marijuana.
The full debate is available as a pdf file.
Coming soon: Can Congress Get a Clue? (Plan Columbia) and Can Congress Get a Clue? (the Karen P. Tandy hearings)